Reasonable gun laws don't infringe on Second Amendment

I find it tiresome to repeatedly hear people respond to any suggested changes in gun laws as being an attack on their Second Amendment rights. As recently as 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court first ruled on an individual's possession of firearms outside of the military. The court ruled, at that time, that an individual had the right to possess a handgun for protection in one's own home.

I don't care to discuss in length the limitations I would support dealing with the kind of weapons and size of magazines that would make me feel safer as a citizen; or discuss my rights to preserve my common welfare. I would like to point out that our amendments are not all-reaching in the subjects they cover. We are subject to limitations under the First Amendment. There are many "common sense" restrictions to our rights concerning our speech and the press, which exist for our common good. Court decisions have covered restrictions when national security, justice and personal safety are involved.

It is certainly not a stretch to look at limitations on how firearms are treated for our safety. Ownership of over sized magazines for weapons and certain firearms? Why not include Stinger missiles or bazookas as a legal weapon? I want to feel safe in my community and that is not reinforced when people are allowed to carry whatever type of weapon they deem reasonable at my expense,

Chris Wiggins

Indianapolis

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Email this article

Reasonable gun laws don't infringe on Second Amendment

I find it tiresome to repeatedly hear people respond to any suggested changes in gun laws as being an attack on their Second Amendment rights. As recently as 2008, the U.S.